The Levesque cases were a series of 28 legal actions brought in US federal courts and the courts of Canada in 1987 - 1990 by a plaintiff seeking damages from the governments of Canada and the US for mindcontrol and ewar invasions against his person, on Canadian territory. I served as the attorney of record for the entire complex litigation, and spent five years trying related cases in Courts in Orlando, Fla, Washington, DC, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, Canada. The results are reported in a book, THE LEVESQUE CASES. (Ontario: PSP Books, 1990), which includes all relevant trial and appellate records, affidavit evidence, motions, rulings, and awards, etc.

What is unique about these cases as opposed to straight field research is that the findings were subjected to the sworn testimony, rules of evidence, cross-examination, use of experts etc. Among the US federal agencies involved as defensants or co- conspirators were the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bush White House (then President Bush was a defendant).

Using a common law tort cause of action of "invasion of privacy" (applicable US federal statutory standards were inadequate), the results achieved by the litigation were astounding.

In the Canadian litigation, the court awarded the plaintiff a $755 million default judgment against the defendant Government of Ontario as agent for the U.S. government. This reflected the court finding that the Ontario Provincial Police acted as agents for the US government and associated intelligence agencies in carryng out unlawful mindcontrol and ewar operations against the plaintiff.

In the US, the case took an extraordinary turn. On interlocutory appeal in 1991 to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court of Appeals reported that they had "lost" the entire trial court record of more than a dozen cartons. Investigation revealed that this action was probably done by a cut-out from one of the defendant intelligence agencies. The trial record exposed the mechanism of US WAR against civilians outside of the US.

The government of Ontario resisted payment of the default judgment vigorously. In 1998, the plaintiff died and his estate has chosen not to pursue the litigations, out of intimidation.

In the court process, the findng of injury was based on sworn testimony and economic effects. That is how common law actions are generally decided. The court understands that the only way to obtain the data is for the plaintiff to be prepared with laboratory instruments at the time of the tort. Fortunately centuries of common law have chosen to protect plaintiffs.

The original court case numbers, from which you can obtain all of the court records should you not wish to read the book, but go straight to the court records themselves, are: